Political Angst In America

Location: Pantego, Texas, United States

Friday, October 31, 2008

I've never like Colin Powell or his idea that the only war we should fight is one we can win in a week. I always thought he was a Republican only to advance his military career. He leaked a lot of information to damage the Bush Administration. I lost all respect for him during the Valerie Plame affair, where he was willing to stand by and watch the CIA try to damage Bush. Here is an article by Thomas Sowell on this subject:


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

According to what I see on TV, the polls on the Presidential race are tightening as we near the end. This seems to always happen in the last week. I have some thoughts on why this phenomena always happens. Early in the race there is an attempt by pollsters to show a large lead by their favorite to create a sense of inevitability. Near the end the pollsters begin to worry about their reputation, so they try to get more realistic. Then there are the media. They also want to influence the outcome by making it appear that their favorite is going to win. But, as the election nears they begin to worry about ratings, which will not be good if the election is decided early in the evening. That is also why they have decide not to project a winner early. They desperately want the Democrat to win, but, even more desperately they want the Republicans to not give up and switch channels.

Satire about greens is taken seriously by some of the greenies.


Texas leads the nation in wind generated electricity. That lead comes at a high cost that the people of Texas will be paying for a long time. I see estimates that wind power is cheap and only costs $0.05 to 0.06 per kWh. That must be after government subsidies. Here is an article about wind power in Texas:


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Coyote blog thinks European style socialism is coming to America with Obama. I don't agree, I think Obama is after something different. I think European socialism is basically a class system, based on my limited exposure to Europeans. People do not have much social mobility. The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich. And the system insures that everyone stays in their proper place. I don't think that is what Obama wants. I think he wants to move the black people up to a higher station. In America they can move up based on their own efforts, but many of them have not tried. So, Obama wants to edict an advancement for them. Here are coyote blogs comments:

European-Style Political Economy Coming to America

A lot of folks, particularly on the left, look with some fondness at the political economy of continental Europe. They are attracted by high job security, short work weeks, long vacations, and a strong welfare system. They make the mistake of seeing in these traits a more promising society "for the little guy," when in fact just the opposite is true.

The European Corporate State

The political economy of companies like Germany and France are actually incredibly elitist, dominated by perhaps a hundred guys (and I do mean guys) who run the country in a model only a few steps removed from Mussolini-style fascism or the Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act. In these countries, perhaps 20 corporations, ten or fifteen large unions, and a group of powerful politicians and regulators run the economy.

US workers sometimes make the mistake of seeing the political power of European unions and equating this power with being a more egalitarian environment for workers. But the European political economy is rule by the in-crowd over the out-crowd that exceeds any of the patronage relationships we complain about in this country. What we don't often see from our American perspective is the way the system is structured not to protect poor from the rich or the weak from the strong, but to protect incumbents (whether they be corporations or skilled workers) from competition.

In the European labor markets, mobility is almost impossible. The union system is built to protect current high-skilled workers from competition from new workers, whether in the same country of from abroad. Large corporations that form part of the cozy governance of the country are protected from new competition, and are bailed out by the government when they hit the rocks.

As a result, unemployment is structurally high in countries like France and Germany, hovering for decades between 8 and 12% -- levels we would freak out at here. Young and/or unskilled workers have a nearly impossible time breaking into the labor market, with entry to better jobs gated through apprenticeships and certifications that are kept intentionally scarce. Joe the plumber is an impossibility in Europe. Some Americans seem to secretly love the prospect of not easily being fired from their job, but they always ignore the flip side -- it is equally hard to ever be promoted, because that incompetent guy above you can't be fired either.

Entrepreneurship in Europe is almost impossible -- the barriers just to organizing your own corporation legally are enormous. And, once organized, you will quickly find that you need a myriad of certifications and permissions to operate in your chosen field -- permissions like as not that are gated and controlled by the very people you wish to compete with. The entire political economy is arrayed in a patronage system to protect current businesses with their current workers.

Here is a test, that works most places in the US except possibly in Manhattan. Ask yourself who are the wealthiest and/or most succesful people that you know. Then think about where they went to school. Sure, some of the more famous Fortune 25 CEOs went to name schools, but what about the majority of succesful people you meet in your life? If you are like me, most of them did not go to Ivy League or what one might call elite schools. They had normal state college educations. You will typically find a very different picture in Europe. While of course there are exceptions, it is much more likely that the wealthy people one meets were channeled through a defined set of elite schools.

Corporations in Europe, particularly the cozy few who wield influence with the government, seldom fail and/or really gain or lose much market share. I always thought this a telling statistic: (Fortune 100 by year here)

[Olaf Gersemann] points out that of the top 20 largest publicly traded companies in the US in 1967, only 11 are even in the top 60 today, much less the top 20. In contrast, he points out that of the 20 largest German companies in 1967, today, thirty-five years and nearly two generations later, 19 are still in the top 60 and 15 are still in the top 20.

Its also an inherently anti-consumer society. The restrictions on foreign trade, entrepreneurship, and new competition all reduce consumer choice and substantially increase prices. EU anti-trust enforcement, for example, barely pretends any more to look out for consumer interests. Most of the regulators decisions are better explained by protection of entrenched and politically influential European competitors than it is by consumer power or choice.

"Progressives" in this country often laud the lower income inequality numbers in Europe vs. the United States. The implication is that the poor in Europe are somehow better off. But in fact this is not true. Careful studies have shown that the poor are at least as well off in the US as in Europe, particularly when one corrects for the number of new immigrants in the US. (That's another difference, by the way -- Europe is virtually closed to immigration, at least as far seeking new integrated citizens is concerned). What drives income inequality is that our middle class is richer than Europe's middle class, and our wealthy have more income than Europe's wealthy.

To this last point, I have always felt that comparisons of the wealthy in the US to those in Europe, and comparison of income inequality numbers, are a bit apples and oranges. The US is a country where access to most of the best perks is via money - they have a price. In Europe, access to most of the best perks can't be bought by money, they can only be accessed by those with the elite establishment club card. To some extent, the income numbers understate the difference between rich and poor in Europe for this reason.

It is interesting to me how the Democrats have managed to change the definition of fascism. They don't like the fact that FDR was a fascist (but, didn't want the media to report that, so they didn't) so they fuzz up the issue by claiming that Republicans are fascists, Bush is worse than Hitler, etc. So, I was encouraged when I read a comment to a blog by someone who understands that Democrats are fascists.


Shannon Love Says:
October 28, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Technically we should classify the model that Obama and most other social-democrats follows as a fascist one. In the fascist model, the means of production nominally remain private hands but the government has the right to intervene in any economic matter of its choosing in any way of its choosing. In addition, the fascist model posits an extensive welfare stare, politically managed health care, state pensions and guaranteed jobs.

Of course, fascism has perjorative connotations so people shy away from making the obvious comparisons. One doesn’t have to be a militarist or xenophobe to be a fascist. One must merely seek power and economic control over the populace. When you start with motive, the fascist model comes into being naturally.

Obama doesn't like the Constitution according to this article. We already knew that. I'm afraid that the Democrats will finally achieve their long-term objective of ending the rule of law in America.


Democrats have criticized Bush's foreign policy for every reason they could think of. Too independent, relied too much on allies, too arrogant, etc. Here is a view of Obama from France:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly views Barack Obama's position on Iran as as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content." Sarkozy is also said to have remarked that it would be "arrogant" for Obama, if he is elected president, to ignore allies like France and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

As Emanuele Ottolenghi notes, Sarkozy's use of the term "arrogant" is interesting because Obama's (utterly immature) critique of U.S. foreign policy relies heavily on the notion that we have been "arrogant" in our dealings with the rest of the world. In fact, the reason Obama has advanced for engaging in talks with a series of anti-American dictatorships, not just Iran, is the need to overcome the perception that we are "arrogant."

How can the President of France have such a view? Doesn't he realize that Obama is the One? How can one who is pefect be arrogant?

It is interesting to read what people in other parts of the world think about the current financial crisis. It is hard to believe that the de-regulation policies of George Bush (in the words of Democrats, though no one seems to be able to cite a specific deregulation enacted by Bush) caused economies of the entire world to crumble.


Note the quote from Hitler. Russians had a similar conversation during the Carter Administration in which they realized that they had to expand by attacking the west while Carter was in office because their economy was collapsing. That was never reported in the press in the US, and later Mondale ran for President on the outright lie that "we are closer to nuclear war than ever before." People did not recognize the extent to which the media were "in the tank" for Democrats back then.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and the self-proclaimed foreign policy geniuses of the Democratic Party handle this. They say George Bush was a failure: we may get to see what real failure is like. The Democrats since Truman have been foreign policy failures. Oh, I know, they made people like us, even as our enemies attacked us relentlessly.

The Miami Dolphin owner wants to sell the team this year to reduce his tax penalty. Obama's supporters say that they only want to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. But, on $500 million that 5% increase amounts to $25 million, not chickenfeed. If I had any capital gains, I would take them this year. The owner apparently thinks the Congress will make the tax increase retroactive to the start of 2009. Clinton did that, so I would think he is correct. Here is ath article about the sale:

Miami Dolphins Owner: Sale of Team Should Happen Before Obama Presidency

The sale of the Miami Dolphins has been approved, but the owner hopes to expedite the transfer, saying he doesn't want to pay more capital gains taxes under an Obama administration.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

H. Wayne Huizenga has been eyeing more than players' stats this season. As national polls swing further into the blue, the Miami Dolphins owner is saying he'd rather sell his team now than later, after Barack Obama is inaugurated.

"He wants to double the capital-gains tax, or almost double it," Huizenga told the Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. "I'd rather give it to charity than to him.”

Huizenga is set to sell up to 45 percent of the team to Stephen Ross, who already purchased 50 percent of the team and Dolphin Stadium for $550 million earlier this year. NFL owners approved the transfer this month so it can take place any time.

"If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes," Huizenga said.

The Obama camp said Huizenga's numbers are all wrong, explaining to the newspaper that the capital gains tax would only go up from 15 percent to 20 percent, a 33 percent increase, not a doubling of the tax.

Monday, October 27, 2008

I would like for some Democrat to explain to me how the policies of the Bush Administration has caused the world financial crisis and economic recession. I probably won't agree with the explanation, but it would be interesting to see how Bush caused Europe and Asia to met-down.

It seems to me that the vital requirements for a economically successful and democratic nation are:

* Freedom of Speech

* Private ownership of property

* A fair judicial system available to everyone.

Communists are opposed to all of these ideas. It seems to me that the Democrats, and particularly Obama, are not strong supporters. Democrats are close to endorsing "thought crimes." Obama wants to redistribute wealth, which amounts to confiscation of private property. (Democrats say they have been doing that for years with the progressive tax system, but to me that is different from planning to tax one group and give the money to another group, as Obama proposes to do.) Finally, Obama says he wants judges that do what is "right" rather than what the law says. Here is a blog on the private property issue.


One of the problems with American politics is that it is so disruptive, mean, vicious and petty that most qualified people stay out of it. Personally, I have doubts about anyone who wants to be President. It requires a certain level of narcissism to want to be President. And, it seems to me that a middle class person would be unable to compete unless he is corrupt. It is curious that relatively poor people work in politics for peanuts all of their life, and retire rich like LBJ, Clinton, and to a lesser degree, Nixon. (When I was young Truman left office after a lifetime in politics, and was not rich.) Here is an article that discusses this.


The relationship between Joe Biden and the media amazes me. The media act as though Joe is a master of international politics and that he is smarter than most everyone. This despite Joe thinking that there was commercial television in 1929 (and that FDR was President then), that the US once kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon before the mistakes of Bush let them back in, and, most incredible of all, that Joe's own personal life story is really that of Neil Kinnock. Democrats can get away with anything with the Democrats in the media.

Barack Obama believes in redistribution of wealth, and claims that it is not socialism. But most of us think it is. Obama has always believed in redistribution of wealth, as indicated from this 2001 interview.


The US Constitution puts limits on the taking of private property by the government. Obama clearly dosn't like that partof the Constitution. In fact, based on his comments, he doesn't like much about it, and would like to get rid of it. At least, he would like it "re-interpreted in modern terms."

Sunday, October 26, 2008

With Obama in the White House, here is the sort of thing that will be coming to America:


Obama and his friends like Hugo Chavez.

Here is a paper that presents evidence that the arctic had less ice 6000 to 7000 years ago than it does now. But, the researcher must be politically correct with regard to global warming, so says that the forces dominating climate were different then than now. It would be interesting to know what forces were dominating climate then, and how we know that those forces are not a factor now.


At present Nancy Pelosi says "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." It is becoming clear that, as predicted, under President Obama dissent will not be tolerated. The Obama campaign threatens a TV station that asked the erratic Joe Biden legitimate questions with loss of access. They also have threatened criminal action against stations that ran ads critical of Obama. They broke the law in checking into the private life of "Joe the Plumber" who simply asked Obama a question, but Obama made the mistake of answering honestly. Obama and the Democrats exhibit by their actions the characteristics of fascists:

* They oppose freedom of speech

* They think that the end justifies the means

* They think that error has no rights.

Democrats often accuse President Bush of being a fascist. But he has clearly, by his actions, shown that he does not embrace any of the above positions. Bush, for the most part, ignores his critics, and has never taken any action against them.

Most people know that "greens" support Democrats, who promise to make energy more expensive. There may be some people who do not yet realize that "greens" like Al Gore plan to make a lot of money from the regulatory actions of Democrats. Here is an article discussing this situation.


Saturday, October 25, 2008

I know a lot of people who think that another civil war is now inevitable in the United States. Some people think that a McCain victory would lead to an immediate rebellion of liberals, but they would lose. Others think that an Obama victory will eventually lead to war, but in that case liberals will have the upper hand. I would like to think that a civil war is still avoidable, but news articles like this Rasmussen Report that says 25% of liberals have a favorable impression of William Ayers is depressing for me. This indicates that there is a huge group of people who support violent action.


Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for President. Why am I not surprised? I think it purely a matter of race. I never like Powell and I lost all respect for him in the Scooter Libby case. Powell knew from the beginning who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame, but said nothing. He clearly wanted to harm Cheney and Rove. He also leaked information with the intent of damaging the Bush Administration. He looks like the typical back-stabber that rises to the top in the military during peacetime. I can't figure out why he is held in such high esteem.

I saw something funny the other day. Russia is monitoring our election, and has concluded that the process is unfair because the media (specifically ABC, CBS, and NBC) are obviously supporting Obama. They have an interest in this since we are always pointing out that the state owned Media in Russia support the man in charge, now Putin. Still, it is amusing that even the Russians can see what is happening here, but the media people themselves claim to be unaware of it.

Melanie Phillips, the British conservative commentator, fears an Obama election. Not all Europeans would like to see America in the hands of someone who is pro-Islam. Here is the opinion piece:


When I was young I was a Democrat, of the "Southern" or Conservative variety, and I worked for the Democrat Party. One of the things that turned me off from Democrats was they way they cheated in elections, and in particular, their glee in cheating, even when they didn't need to in order to win. Here is an article that sheds some light at just how crude the methods used by Democrats are, in particular in Florida in 2000 and later in Washington. Personally I like the way in close elections they always find a box of uncounted votes that has just enough for their side to make them win. They did that in New Mexico in 2000 when Bush originally won by a narrow margin. Many Democrats may not believe that Democrat election officials would do things like deliberately invalid votes for Bush in Florida, or use white-out on paper ballots. But I do because I saw them do things like deliberately cheat on vote totals. (When I pointed out the discrepancy it was suggested that I would be wise to shut up and leave, and don't come back. That's when I became a Republican.) Back in the 1960 election I recall a quote from a Democrat election judge, in Angelina County who, when questioned by a reporter about stuffing the box for Kennedy, said "I did it, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it." (That was back in the days when reporters were objective and reported the facts rather than the Democrat "talking points.") Here is an article that discusses how the Democrats have cheated in recent times.


Friday, October 24, 2008

Barack Obama is planning energy policies for the United States similar to the "green" policies already put in place by the Labor (ie, socialist) Party in Great Britain. These policies are not working out well for Great Britain which faces severe energy shortages that are now inevitable due to government actions. The same thing will happen in the United States if the energy policies of Obama and the Democrats are adopted. (McCain believes in the climate change hypothesis, but is willing to drill for oil and to build nuclear power plants.) Here is an article from England about that country's plight, whcih is largely self-imposed by socialist politicians.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

There is a lot of concern these days about "perk oil" and energy generation. The Holy Grail of energy production is fusion power. Here is an update on the status of fusion research.


Our politicians talk a lot about providing a college education for everyone. They don't believe in IQ, and don't realize that half of the people have an IQ of less than 100, or that it takes an IQ of over 106 (about 35% of the population are at this level or higher)at the minimum to succeed in college. The following article discusses the issue of people who are not qualified going to college and not succeeding. This wastes time and money, and is probably damaging to self-esteem of the individuals. This article says that only 23% of high school graduates are prepared for college. It turns out that about 23% of the population have an IQ of 111 or higher. About 40% of Freshmen do not graduate in six years. I think it is clear that too many people are going to college, and that the nation would be better served if some alternative type of training were offered.


Jerry Pournelle has a lot of insight into the nature of bureaucracies. Here is an interesting comment that explains why most jobs are created by small companies: companies can't afford to grow beyond a certain size due to government regulations. This situation will get much worse under President Obama, but maybe just a little worse under President McCain.


Incidentally, the Regulatory State seems determined to restrict America to two kinds of companies: those with fewer than 50 employees, and giant corporations with thousands of employees. No one in his right mind would expand a company -- particularly in California but Federal Law is making this universal -- from 49 to 51 employees. The instant one gets to 50 (or 51 depending on the state) a huge panoply of regulations kick in, so many that even if one can afford to comply with them all, one will also need a compliance staff of several employees to make sure one is in compliance. This means that up to 10% of one's work force does nothing productive except keep the owners out of jail. This makes the company singularly uncompetitive when faced with companies that don't have to devote so many resources to complying with regulations. This is probably not what distributionists had in mind.

The United States consumption of gasoline is about 390 million gallons per day. A reduction in pump price of 1 cent per gallon represents an addition of about $1.4 Billion per year in the pockets of Americans. A reduction of $1 per gallon would be over $140 billion per year, the bulk of the money going to lower income people. So why do the Democrats oppose efforts to increase oil production by the US? Such production has enormous benefits for the United States. For one thing the royalty payments to the government would be good. Second, the reduction in price of oil resulting from an increase of production in the US of even 2 million barrels per day would have a negative impact on the economies of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia who are adversarial towards us, and would
also reduce the income of Arab states who do not wish us well.

One of the amusing things about "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the forces opposed to freedom are calling it now, is the "Gore Effect." It seems that often when Gore goes to speak about global warming, the weather suddenly turns unseasonably cold. I recall an event in South Africa when a rare snowfall occurred when Gore was to speak. Here is a comment about a recent Gore speech at Harvard.


For those who think my comment about enemies of freedom is over the top, note at the end of the article that Czech President Vaclav Klaus and former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar have the same view.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Here is a comment about the current financial crisis by a Democrat reporter (but, given that he used to be a Mormon missionary, he may not be a liberal).


I'm still mystified as to why Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as government sponsored entities were allowed to lobby Congress and to contribute to congressional campaigns.

Recently I predicted that a movement would develop to remove old automobiles from the highways. This is necessary to quickly reduce the amount of fuel used, assuming that lower gasoline consumption cars, or purely electric cars, are available. Here is such a movement from Great Britain. The US is usually behind in social movements like this.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Recently my son also posted a blog about the unreliability of Snopes with rgard to political issues. I suppose that great minds think alike. Here is his post:


Obama Supporting African Thugs

Here is a post that I put up about a week ago. One of my friends wrote me an email to let me know that I had been duped and that my facts were wrong according to Snopes. Sure enough, I went out to Snopes and was a bit surprised that most of what I had written, and been writing about, and had known to be true was suddenly wrong!!

Since it was so far out of whack, I pulled the entry down as I didn’t want to be someone spreading dis-information as easily as everyone does on the Internet. I also went back to researching the information and made a startling discovery.

Snopes is liberally biased and this is proven repeatedly by showing Snopes reports compared to actual facts and events that shape politics. Do a google on Snopes and liberal. So I went back and continued to do some more research on my original post. I am going to let it stand. The only thing that is partially unclear is whether or not Obama is really Odigna’s cousin. What is not unclear is that Obama has some sort of relation with the man and has campaigned both with and for him at various times.

Snopes may be good at dispelling hoax emails, but I can no longer trust them to accurately report on political issues. One report I read indicated that the author searched multiple instances of Obama and then multiple instances of McCain. Overwhelmingly Snopes reported negative information of Obama to be False, while it simultaneously reports negative information about McCain to be true. Who do you trust? I suppose you have to gather the facts for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.

And now, without further delay….the original post!

I’ve written about Raila Odinga before. He’s Obama’s cousin and as he puts it, they stay in close contact. Obama recently donated almost $1-million U.S. dollars to Odinga’s cause. BTW – the Obama camp refuses to comment on the donation.

What is his cause? Rewriting the constitution of his country to change it to a nation of Islam based on Shira law. He was just recently involved in a political melt-down in which thousands of people were slaughtered – mostly based on their race. Odinga was just named Prime Minister in an effort to stop the violence! This is not the first time Odinga has been involved with this level of violence. Let’s call it what it is – genocide.

Again, you just don’t hear about this much here in the west (America). Not only do you not hear much about the Muslim violence and genocide in Africa the media consistently fails to report it in any manner associated with Barack Huessein Obama.

And yes, I used his middle name just like Sherrif Mike Scott who is now being persecuted by the press.

Look – you people that support Obama seemingly and consistently turn a blind eye to his political and Muslim ties, and ties to violence, outside of the U.S. And why is it important that it’s Muslim ties? Because the violence and genocide that is occurring in Africa and other parts of the world is directly related to Islam, its beliefs and it’s teachings.

It’s hypocritical to fault the Bush administration for continued violence and the war yet you turn a blind eye to Obama and his support of his cousin (Odinga) who could be called an orchestrator of mass murder.

That’s why conservatives in the U.S. are very concerned about Obama’s loyalty to the U.S., and the constitution.

I don't know exactly what the relationship is between Odinga and Obama is. I have read that Odinga is Obama's uncle, and that he is his cousin. Given the number of wives Muslims have, and their frequent changes, intermarriage, etc. who knows? They may not be certain themselves. But, it is definite that the two are friendly, and that Odinga is a committed Muslim. The Muslims tend to stick with their families. See the recent Steve Sailer blog on cousin marriage in Iraq.


I wonder how many Americans are aware of the recent discovery of a huge oil field off the coast of Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico. All of the reports of this that I have seen are from foreign sources. It must not be something Democrats want Americans to know about.


At 20 billion barrels the field gives Cuba about the same oil reserves as the proven reserves of the United States. The US Geological Survey had estimated that the field contains 4.9 billion barrels. Democrats do not want the US to exploit the oil reserves off the coast of the US because of all sorts of fictitious reasons they conjure up. The USGS says there is not much there, it will take too long to get it (the Cubans expect to start production in 2009, not so long from now), and it may damage the environment (the Cuban field is closer to the US than many of the drilling sites off of the US coast). Most of their excuses are pure bunk. One thing that the Cubans will get is about $1.5 trillion for the oil at current prices. This find will turn Cuba from an importer of oil to a major exporter. There are probably at least 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil off of the United States. At current prices that oil is worth $7 trillion. That represents a lot of good jobs for Americans, and a lot of royalty income for the US that could be applied to the huge national debt. I expect Obama and the Democrats to prevent drilling offshore and on public lands next year, and to join with the Tides Foundation in trying to prevent drilling on private property. Obama will instead create 5 million "green" jobs. We all wait eagerly to see how much energy those 5 million jobs produce.

A lot of people use Snopes.com to determine if emails are hoaxes or not. It is probably good in general, but after I looked up a few political items and global warming things where I knew the truth, I determined that it has a liberal bias, and functions as an arm of the Democrat spin machine. Others have reached the same conclusion. Here is something about snopes's reliability from "dissecting leftism."

So you think you can trust snopes.com?

I rarely put up emails I receive but the one below coincides with my own experience and I think the facts of the matter need to be known. Amusingly, I looked for the email on snopes and it was not mentioned!

We have all become accustomed to going to snopes.com to verify hoax emails and other facts but did you know that, regarding political issues, snopes is not the source to go to?

I became suspicious after going to snopes.com and typing in the search word 'Obama' which brought up almost every known accusation against Obama. Surprisingly, virtually each and every one of them was labeled 'false' or had some other explanation rendering it not true. Then I did a search using the search word 'McCain' and lo and behold.... there was virtually nothing that came up regarding accusations made against McCain but again brought up some of the same things that McCain supporters have made against Obama and again....claiming them 'false'.

I then did a web search on 'snopes.com' and found many articles and websites stating that snopes.com is a known liberal biased website. Here's a quote off of one website: 'Snopes is reluctant to admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are 'true' as far as snopes can determine. There is always a disclaimer, footnote or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through the 'snopes lens.'

Need more proof? Do your own web search on snopes and find many more things there talking about the political bias of snopes. So any of you who have misguided liberal friends or family that keep throwing 'check snopes.com' in your face, please understand what you are looking at and inform those that use it as a crutch that it is a biased website that may be good to check email hoaxes, but not one to go to for political facts!!

Monday, October 20, 2008

Islam, the religion of peace, strikes again. (This is from Cheat Seeking Missiles):

Gayle Williams, a 34-year-old missionary with dual British-South African citizenship, was gunned down by Taliban assassins on a motorbike. A Taliban spokesman later confirmed that Williams’ hit was ordered because she was spreading Christianity.

The concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not accepted by Islam. It is impossible for a Muslim to sincerely swear allegiance to the US Constitution, no matter what Colin Powell, Barack Obama, George Bush or any other politician tells us. At the same time, it is permissible, even a requirement, for a Muslim to lie to us and deceive us.

All of my life I have heard that there is a shortage of engineers. But in my engineering career of 50 years I could never detect that there was a significant shortage. At times, companies had difficulty hiring a large number of engineers with the experience they wanted on short notice, but that was about the extent of it. They really liked to hire foreign engineers who worked for less when circumstances permited it. Here is an article about the supply of engineers (and scientists).


I was an engineer because that was what I was interested in. I think that is true for most engineers and scientists. There are a lot of ways to make more money, like law or medicine, or even selling real estate.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are clearly opposed to free speech. They are strongly in favor of re-instituting the mis-named broadcasting "Fairness Doctrine." They hope that would get rid of their mortal enemies, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Then there is the experience of Joe the plumber. (One criticism of Joe I heard was that his name is actually Samuel, not Joe; well, actually Joe is his middle name and for some unknown but no doubt nefarious reason he goes by his middle name rather than his first name.) Here is a blurb on this subject from "Instapundit:

* Free speech. Remember that? We’ve already had a taste of how Obama deals with speech he doesn’t like: he tries to shut it down. When Stanley Kurtz went on Milt Rosenberg’s Extension 720 radio show in Chicago, Obama’s minions followed Obama’s order to “get in [the] face” of opponents and flooded the phone lines with protests.

There have been a lot of disgusting things about this campaign. The hysterical attack on Sarah Palin and her family was a new low. But for my money the very worst episode (so far) has been the attack on Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher. Joe asked Obama an embarrassing question. More to the point, he elicited a momentary lapse into candor from Obama, a moment, moreover, that was caught on tape, broadcast and rebroadcast, and that John McCain seized (or at least maneuvered with rhetorical paws) in his last debate with Obama: It’s not that I want to punish you for your success, Obama said, it’s just that I want to spread the wealth around. Joe the Plumber assumed that the money he made was his money. That was hist first mistake. Obama-Pelosi-Reid do not like private property (except their own): they think the government should take more and more of it and spread it around.

Poor Joe. Talk about “the politics of personal destruction”! Turns out the Clintons were rank amateurs at that game. The roof fell in on Joe. The Obama smear machine went to work. Did you know that when he lived in Arizona in 2000, his driver’s license was suspended? Did you know that he isn’t a licensed plumber? (What? He works for a licensed plumber and doesn’t need a license for the sort of residential work he does? Don’t confuse the story!) Did you know that he owes back taxes (OK, it’s a pittance, but, hey, we’re trying to assassinate someone’s character here). Joe isn’t running for anything. He is an ordinary working stiff. He was throwing a football around in his yard with his son when Obama walked by and he took the opportunity to ask a sharp question. The candidate gave an answer that was just a little too candid. Result: Joe must be publicly pilloried and the focus must be moved firmly from Obama’s answer to Joe’s alleged misdemeanors. A few days ago, Joe spoke to Mike Huckabee on Fox TV. “I asked a question. When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me.” As well it should. It should bother you, Dear Reader, too.

Obama committed the classical political gaffe. According to Michael Kinsley, a gaffe is when a politician unwittingly blurts out the truth. (Joe Biden is the master of the gaffe, but the press covers for him because, well, everyone knows how Joe Biden is.) Obama inadvertently revealed to Joe the plumber that he is a socialist who plans on redistribution of wealth. Thus Joe the Plumber must be destroyed, and Obama's minions in the press set about to do it. We now know more about Joe the Plumber's private life and beliefs than we do about Obama's.

THe current financial crisis was partially caused by the subprime mortgage mess, but measures to reduce CO2 emissions were also a factor, as explianed by the economist Larry Kudlow:


Barack Obama says he will immediately order the EPA to certify CO2 as a pollutant (never mind that life can't exist without CO2 in the atmosphere). This will then allow environmentalists to sue, as they are eager to do, to stop construction of all CO2 emitting power plants in the US. He will also stop drilling off of the coast of the US, and will no doubt aid the Tides Foundation in their attempts to stop drilling on private property. The net result will be Jimmy Carter style stagflation on steroids. The economy is at risk. (In this regard John McCain is not much better than Obama.) In a few years the people will wish that the evil George Bush was back in the White House.

The reason big business and Wall Street favor Democrats is because they don't actually like free markets. They like fascist government regulations that effectively pick winners and losers. They are more certain of success in the marketplace if all they have to do is influence politicians as opposed to satisfying a lot of customers in the free market. Wining and dining politicians, and taking them to expensive vacation retreats, is a lot more fun than working hard for customers. In fact, they can simply stiff the public after they get enough support from government. For older people, just recall the fun we used to have dealing with AT&T.

Today in a comment to a blog someone said that the action to take with Obama as President is moving to Texas, since Texas still has the right to secede from the union. People thought that back in my great-great-grandfathers's time, so Southerners brought their slaves to Texas as the Civil War (known in the South as the War of Northern Agression) went badly for them. But, it didn't work out back then and I doubt it would work now. Of course Texas is now over 30% Mexican and will soon be over 50%, so there is a real possibility that a movement to re-join Mexico could be popular.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Viscount Monckton has sent John McCain an open letter asking him to re-consider his foolish policy position on reacting to the non-existent problem of global warming. I agree with most of the letter, except with regard to how long it will be before fossil fuels are exhausted. There is more oil and natural gas available in shale than Monckton thinks; he may not be aware of what is now available with new technology in the US. Also, the nuclear fuel supply for thorium fueled breeder reactors will last for hundreds of years. I doubt sending the letter to McCain will do any good, and sending it to Obama would be a complete waste of effort since Obama is one of the socialists, communists or some other stripe of collectivist that Monckton says desire to use the idea of "global warming" to destroy capitalism.


Here is an article by a guy who thinks the current Presidential election is not about race or sex, but rather is about class. McCain and Palin are losing because they act like low class folk. They are solidly middle class, but are suspect because they deliberately make no attempt to act upper class. That's why I like them, but then I make no attempt to act upper class. Clinton was really a low class guy, but he acted upper class in public. Truman was the only President in the last 100 years who was middle class, and acted like it. After he left office he was invited back to Washington for an event of some sort. He drove himself in his own car and didn't have any secret service guards, servants, staff or other strap-hangers. (He carried a 0.38 revolver for self protection.) He didn't like servants skulking about. I agree with Truman. Maybe the author is on to something.


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Here is news from Bloomberg. Obama will declare CO2 a pollutant, something that will bring the US economy to a standstill as the electricity supply falls far short of demand. Environmentalists are eager to stop building of new coal fired electricity generating plants in America. Most of the people do not yet realize what this will mean. This action would turn the long anticipated pending recession (that hasn't actually started yet) into a depression far more severe than that of the 1930's. McCain is so erratic, it is possible that he would do the same thing as Obama. Here is the article:

From Bloomberg News: Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. Last Updated: October 16, 2008 09:50 EDT

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama’s rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.

Obama “would initiate those rulemakings,” Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. “He’s not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.”

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

The president may take action on new rules immediately upon taking office, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. Environment groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council will issue a regulatory agenda for the next president that calls for limits on CO2 from industry.

`Hit Ground Running’

“This is what they should do to hit the ground running,” Bookbinder said in an Oct. 10 telephone interview.

Separately, Congress is debating legislation to create an emissions market to address global warming, a solution endorsed by both candidates and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal. Congress failed to pass a global-warming bill in June and how long it may take lawmakers to agree on a plan isn’t known.

“We need federal legislation to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Vicki Arroyo, general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. “In the meantime, there is this vacuum. People are eager to get started on this.”

An Obama victory would help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists, said today in Berlin. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2.

`Back in the Game’

“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. “We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he’ll move quickly.”

Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department. Every hour, fossil-fuel combustion generates 3.5 million tons of emissions worldwide, helping create a warming effect that “already threatens our climate,” the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.

The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone. Regulation under the act “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in July. The law “is the wrong tool for the job.”

Proponents of regulation are hoping for better results under a new president. Obama adviser Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said if Congress hasn’t acted in 18 months, about the time it would take to draft rules, the president should.

EPA Authority

“The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action,” Grumet said. “If there’s no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.”

States where coal-fired plants may be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

The alternative, a national cap-and-trade program created by Congress, offers industry more options, said Bruce Braine, a vice president at Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric. The world’s largest cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases opened in Europe in 2005.

Under a cap-and-trade program, polluters may keep less- efficient plants running if they offset those emissions with investments in projects that lower pollution, such as wind-energy turbines or systems that destroy methane gas from landfills.

McCain `Not a Fan’

“Those options may still allow me to build new efficient power plants that might not meet a higher standard,” Braine said in an Oct. 9 interview. “That might be a more cost-effective way to approach it.”

McCain hasn’t said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act. McCain adviser and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey said Oct. 6 that new rules may conflict with Congressional efforts. Policy adviser Rebecca Jensen Tallent said in August that McCain prefers a bill debated by Congress rather than regulations “established through one agency where one secretary is getting to make a lot of decisions.”

“He is not as big of a fan of standards-based approaches,” Arroyo said. “The Supreme Court thinks it’s clear that there is greenhouse-gas authority under the Clean Air Act. To take that off the table probably wouldn’t be very wise.”

More Efficient Technologies

How new regulations would affect the proposed U.S. coal plants depends on how they are written, said Bill Fang, climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for utilities. About half of the proposed plants plan to use technologies that are 20 percent more efficient than conventional coal burners.

“Several states have denied the applicability of the Clean Air Act to coal permits,” Fang said in an Oct. 10 interview.

In June, a court in Georgia stopped construction of the 1,200- megawatt Longleaf power plant, a $2 billion project, because developer Dynegy Inc. failed to consider cleaner technology.

An appeals board within the EPA is considering a challenge from the Sierra Club to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s air permit for its 110-megawatt Bonanza coal plant in Utah on grounds that it failed to require controls on CO2. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 typical U.S. homes.

“Industry has woken up to the fact that a new progressive administration could move quickly to make the United States a leader rather than a laggard,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the group’s national coal campaign.

This news is expected, but it is still depressing. I think the current stock market weakness is a reflection of the probable election of Obama. In fairness, the prospect of McCain being elected is also not appealing. The stock market is a forward looking mechanism, reflecting expected conditions several months into the future rather than the present.

Here is an article from American Thinker on Bush's strategy that led to the invasion of Iraq. This is the view that I have subscribed to since before the actual invasion. I think future historians, who are not concerned about internal politics in the US, will also adopt this theory for the war, whether or not they agree with the strategy. And, while the strategy was risky, it was bold, and offered long term advantage for the US.


Regardless of what one thinks of Bush's strategy, it is superior to that proposed by the Democrats, which was to ignore the threat and treat terrorist acts as a law enforcement issue. (One wonders about the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of suicide bombers such as Mohammad Atta and his friends. Or, how to prosecute Muslim terrorists who attack us from Muslim countries that condone or actively support terrorist attacks.)

I keep hearing people on TV talk about wanting to change "the failed policies of the Bush Administration." None of them ever specify exactly what the failed policies are. The only thing they mention is tax cuts for the rich. But I don't see how that can be called a failed policy. One might not agree with tax cuts, but it is hard to argue that tax cuts harmed the economy. Often they mention that Bush wanted to privatize social security, but that was a proposal, and never became policy. I would like to see someone interviewing Democrats on TV ask for three specific failed policies of Bush.

Democrats like to deride the "trickle down" economics of the Republicans. They claim nothing makes it down to the people at the bottom. I wonder about that because people at the bottom economically seem to have a lot. They all have color TV sets, DVD players, iPods, etc. Barack Obama and the Democrats want replace "trickle down" with the Robin Hood Plan, where they equalize things by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. That does not seem like a good plan to me because it will do nothing to improve economic growth. It might be of value if poor people were so bad off that they did not have enough to eat, so were unable to do anything productive. Actually the poor have so much to eat that liberals are concerned about them being too fat. I wonder if Democrats have thought about how John Kennedy's "a rising tide lifts all boats" is closer to "trickle down" than it is to "Robin Hood."

The financial crisis in the United States seems to have its roots in the political decision to promote home ownership in the "minority" population. This started under the Carter Administration, but was not pushed. Under Clinton regulators imposed quotas on financial institutions. That led to a situation where home loans were being made to people who were credit risks to the extent that they were unlikely to be able to repay the loans. Eventually the financial institutions were actively seeking out minority people to whom to make loans. The government supported entities Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae bought, at the insistence of politicians, mostly Democrats, all loans no matter how poor the quality. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac packaged up the risky loans with good loans, and sold them to financial institutions, much like putting lipstick on a pig, to use a phrase that is in vogue today. After the Enron collapse, the regulators also instituted a mark-to-market accounting rule that is ill-suited to real estate. Then in 2004 regulators allowed companies to increase their leverage significantly. These factors appear to have caused the crisis in the US. But, it now appears that the crisis is worldwide. The foreign nations did not have a lot of the home mortgage issues that led to the problem in the US. It is true that they seem to have bought some of the toxic loans from the US. But, I can't help but wonder how much the attempts to control CO2 emissions have hurt the economies in Australia and Europe. From what I read on the internet, it does appear that these activities have had a significant negative effect in Great Britain, and to a lessor degree in Australia. I appears to me that climate control measures which may be unnecessary, and which are likely to be ineffective in any event, will cause a depression in the Western World.

Today in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram there was an article about the surge in killings in Cuidad Juarez. So far this year over 1100 people have been murdered in the city of 1.5 Million, with policemen being shot down in broad daylight in a hail of bullets. By contrast, across the Rio Grande in El Paso, Texas, a city of 600,000, there were 17 homicides during the entire year of 2007. The killings in Juarez are attributed to the drug cartels. Not much about the situation in Mexico is being reported in the US. But, by the criteria used in Iraq, the MSM would have to say that there is a civil war going on in Mexico.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

One thing I find interesting about the Global Warming debate is that most people have fallen for the idea that the sceptics have a large financial interest in stopping action on global warming. Actually the reverse is true, with the large financial interest being with he proponents of global warming. Al Gore has made a lot from the global warming gig. He has made more money than Clinton has since they left the White House, and Clinton has made over $100 million. Here is an article that discusses this.


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

I usually vote for Republicans because of their overall philosophy of individualism compared to the statism of the Democrats. America was founded on the principle that the rights of the individual supersede that of the state. (Republicans are termed conservatives because they want to maintain individualism.) The Democrats have increasing turned toward the statist European collectivist model that has the individual subservient to the state, a system they proclaim a desire to emulate. The Democrats have several core initiatives that I do not support. It is unambiguous that the Democrat leadership supports these things, though many people who think of themselves as Democrats may not personally support all of these initiatives. Here is what the Democratic Party wants to do that I do not support.

1) Re-institution of the mis-named broadcasting "fairness doctrine." The Democrats want to put conservative talk radio off of the air. (When the fairness doctrine was implented there were very few outlets in each market so the doctrine made sense. Now there are literally hundreds of outlets in each market so there is no compelling reason for the fairness doctrine.)

2) Pass the mis-named "Employee Free Choice" Act. This eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.

3) Amend the Constitution to allow a person to be elected President more than twice. (They envision this as making Obama President for Life.)

4) Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. (This would make it very difficult for a Republican to be elected President with the current demographics of the country. Actually, the influx of Hispanics into the country will make it impossible for the current Republican Party to win a Presidential election within a few years anyway.)

5) Change the law to force states to recognize "gay marriages" performed in other states. This effectively would make "gay marriage" the law of the land.

6) Ensure that abortion on demand is not restricted, and provide government funding for abortion. (I think that life begins at conception, and that the Mother's rights do not supersede the baby's rights.)

7) Appoint judges who legislate from the bench by finding new "rights" in the Constitution that no one previously saw, and who apply foreign judicial decisions as precedent in the United States.

8) Interpret the Constitution to limit or eliminate the private ownership of guns.

9) support affirmative action programs, including outright quota systems.

(They may decide that 3) and 4)are not worth wasting time on since it would take approval from the legislatures of 38 states Amend the Constitution, and they may decide that it is too hard to do within 3or 4years.)

Democrats have some policy proposals this year that I do not support. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and other prominent Democrats have expressed the desire to do the following that I do not agree with. There are many Democrats who do not agree with all of these positions, which reflect the views of the now dominant liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

1) Have Obama meet without any pre-conditions with the leaders of nations that are hostile to us.

2) End US support of Israel. (Obama has backed off some on this one as a practical matter to maintain the Jewish vote. However, his advisers clearly have antipathy toward Israel, and Samantha Power Sunstein, who worked as a foreign policy advisor to Obama for two years, has advocated the UN occupying Israel, and turning it over to Muslims. In addition, his chief advisor, a woman named Jarrett, is an Iranian, but I don't know her position on Israel.)

3) Reinstitute the FDR New Deal. (This was basically a fascist system according to many scholars, much of which was rejected by the Supreme Court. The current Supreme Court may well not intervene.) Included in this is a Congressional Black Caucus plan to simply give the houses to people who bought houses they couldn't afford.

4) Implement a single payer Healthcare System, basically socialized medicine.

5) Implement an educational plan that puts all children in a pre-K program. Presumably the instruction would include indoctrinating children on the evils of America and capitalism, and the need for revolution, similar to what William Ayers tried to implement in Chicago.

6) Attack freedom of speech with "hate crime" laws, and eventually "thought crime" laws similar to what are being implemented in Canada and in the EU.

7) Surrender sovereignty of the US to the UN, including paying taxes to the UN. (Obama has already introduced legislation in the Senate to allow the UN to tax the US. It had no chance with Bush as President, but Democrats with a super majority in Congress and the White House will pass it early in the Obama Administration.)

8) Withdraw militarily from Iraq without stabilizing it.

9) End the United States Anti-ballistic missile program. Do not follow the lead of Russia and China in developing space based military systems. Phase out nuclear weapons from the US arsenal.

10) Redistribute wealth in America by taxing some people with the express purpose of distributing the money collected with the tax to other people.

Here is an article from the blog Betsy's page. Stanley Kurtz has been investigating the connection between the CRA, Acorn, and the mortgage financial crisis. Just think, Obama is going to let Acorn work on his transition team setting the agenda. Hide your wallet.

The CRA's ostensible purpose is to prevent banks from discriminating against minorities. But Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who chaired the subcommittee, was worried that charges of discrimination had become an excuse for lowering credit standards. She warned that new, Democrat-proposed CRA regulations could amount to an illegal quota system.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown.

When the role of ACORN and congressional Democrats in the mortgage crisis is pointed out, Democrats reply that banks subject to the CRA represent only about a quarter of the loans that led to our current troubles. In fact, the problem goes way beyond the CRA.

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose.

IT struck as Roukema aired her concerns at that hearing. Pro testers, led by ACORN President Maud Hurd, stood up and began chanting, "CRA has got to stay!" and "Banks for greed, not for need!" The protesters then demanded the microphone.

With the hearing interrupted and the demonstrators refusing to leave, Roukema called the Capital Police, who arrested Hurd and four others for "disorderly conduct in a Capital building" - a charge carrying a penalty of a $500 fine, six months in prison or both. As the police arrived, two of the protesters menacingly approached Roukema's desk, still demanding the hearing microphone.

Requests to the Capital Police to release the activists from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass,) failed. Then Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) showed up at the jail and refused to leave until the protesters were released; the Capital Police relented.

Meanwhile, instead of repudiating ACORN's intimidation tactics, Rep. Kennedy berated Roukema for arresting one of his constituents and accused the Republicans of preparing for "an all-out attack on CRA." He also promised to introduce legislation to expand the CRA's coverage to mortgage bankers and large credit unions.

THIS little slice of political life from 1995 had a variety of ripple effects. Above all, ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. By steamrolling the GOP that March, it had crushed the last potential barrier to "change."

Three months later, the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights - regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Most Americans seem to not understand what socialism is, and do not appreciate that Nazi Germany was a socialist state. Here is an article that discusses this issue. I like the suggestion for changing the American terms of Conservative and Liberal to Individualist and Statist. That is a much better description of the core beliefs of the two groups. The so-called liberals are not liberal, and are in fact for big government. The Conservatives are actually conservative in terms of American experience in that they want to preserve the individualism of the founding fathers, but in the rest of the world this individualism is regarded as being liberal. Here is the article:


Politicians always get into some serious semantics gymnastics during campaigns. Obama says he is going to give a tax cut to 95% of the American workers. Since almost half of the people do not pay income tax that is impossible. His explanation is that he is going to give them a "refund" even if they pay no tax. This really means he is giving them a welfare payment. To me, this is not semantics, but rather is an outright deception. He is going to take money from those who pay taxes, and give it to those who do not. Obama calls this social justice. It sounds like a bribe to me: vote for me and I'll give you money. Republics often end when the citizens start voting themselves money. That demise may be accelerated in the current situation as the Democrats and Acorn endeavor to sign up people who are not citizens to vote themselves money.

Here is something interesting. It appears that a sheriff is being accused of campaigning for McCain because he mentioned Obama's middle name. It seems odd that that would be illegal.Obama's middle name is Hussein, whci is an Arab name. I guess mentioning it is perjorative.


Here is an interesting development that illustrates the hypocrisy of Democrats. Back in 2006 the Democrats ran against the "Republican culture of corruption in Congress." Republican Congressman Mark Foley was cited as the prime example by Rahm Emanuel, the reelection campaign manager of the Democrats. Foley was a homosexual (not a secret according to people I know who are familiar with Congress) who had sent salacious emails to a male page. Foley's seat was taken by Democrat Tim Mahoney. It turns out that Mahoney was having an affair with a member of his staff, and this was known by the Democrats at the time of the election. Mahoney's affair came to light after his staff-member mistress found out that he was cheating on both her and his wife and started threatening a sex harassment suit, was offered a payoff, etc. Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats tried to keep the lid on this until after the election this year. Nancy Pelosi has finally called for an investigation into the Mahoney affair. Two years ago Republicans were called corrupt for doing the same thing Democrats are doing now. The MSM were all over Foley. My guess is that they have little interest in Mahoney. After all, people expect this sort of behavior and hypocrisy from Democrats. (Several years ago a Democrat Congressman named Gerry Studds had sex with an underage male page in the Capitol, and it was not a big deal; he was easily re-elected, and was lionized by the Democrats when he died.)

I watched John McCain's speech today. I still don't like his style or his pseudo-populist politics, but he is definitely the lesser of two evils. He was flanked by his wife and Sarah Palin, and I have to give him credit for surrounding himself with good-looking women. I like two of his ideas, only one of which he mentioned today. He didn't mention that he wants to give more money to primary care physicians so they stay more involved with their patients as they see specialists. (My interest is because of the recent health problems my wife had in which she saw 10 different specialists and we got to the point where there was no overall plan. It was left to us to coordinate care, and we didn't have the necessary knowledge.) McCain also would like to stop the IRS from requiring people over 70 1/2 to withdraw money from their IRA, and thus pay income tax on the withdrawal. That would help me a lot. Under the current rules it would reduce my income enough that I would pay less for my and my wife's medicare premium. I suspect liberals wouldn't like that proposal since it would reduce current tax revenues, and it would probably result in more money being passed to my children, something liberals deplore.

Here is a view of the US Presidential election expressing fear of an Obama victory by Melanie Phillips (she is a former liberal who switched after being mugged by reality);


Government policies caused the current financial crisis, and more regulation would not prevent future problems of a similar nature. Maybe reform of regulations would help, and smarter regulator would be a significant help. Here is an opinion piece by Stanley Kurtz which explains the situation, though Democrats wouldn't agree with it. And, although he tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, Bush didn't help when he opened up the easy home loan market to illegal aliens. This article examines the role of Acorn and Barack Obama in the creation of policy that lead to the current financial crisis:

“’You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.’ So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left ‘community organizers’ called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness. At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis... In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: ‘Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.’ Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers ‘who have historically been excluded from homeownership.’ In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with ‘dog-food’ wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN...ACORN is at the base of the whole mess... And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.” —Stanley Kurtz

Sunday, October 12, 2008

THe US Supreme Court made a recent decision in which they determined that CO2 is a pollutant. This scientifically ignorant decsision is distressing to me, and gives me some concern about the future of our Democracy. Life on Earth as we know it could not exist without CO2 in the atmosphere. Many people seem to not realize that all of the plant life we see around us, trees, grass, animals, etc. are comprised of carbon taken from the atmosphere. I have seen estimates that life could not exist as we know it with CO2 levels of 160 ppm (the pre-industrial level is generally thought to have been 240 ppm). Plants do better as the CO2 level increases with levels of 1000 ppm used in greenhouses. Here is a video showing how the increased CO2 levels in recent times have greened the desert in China.


Here are some more reasons why I oppose Obama and Democrats, though in truth, McCain and Republicans are not much better than Obama and the Democrats in some cases. The Democrats claim to be for individual liberty. By that they mean they are for social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action. They actually are opposed to freedom of speech and economic freedom. For example, they intend to re-institutute the ridiculously mis-named "fairness doctrine." They intend to put talk radio off of the air, along with, they hope, the Fox Broadcasting Network. Of course, this desire for fairness will not affect their supporters at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc. They would like to limit the internet, though that may be a more difficult challenge. They also want to criminalize so-called "hate speech," which would include such things as pointing out that Islam calls on its followers to war against non-believers, something that is true. My problem with the association of Obama and the communist terrorist William Ayers has more to do with Ayers current efforts to indoctrinate children to support revelution and to detest capitalism than Ayers long ago terrorist acts. Obama worked with Ayers to achieve his goals, and says he wants to impose the indoctrination of school children throughout the nation. (It is curious to me that a communist terrorist like Ayers, who continues to advocate the destruction of America, can become a respected citizen in Chicago. That is scary to me.) The Democrats caused a lot of current finacial crisis with their insistence on forcing banks to loan money to poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford. (The greed of the Democrat's financial supporters like the unscrupulous robber barons Angelo Mozillo, Dick Fuld, and Franklin Raines were also a factor, along with the regulators who let financial entities increase their leverage to extremes.) Now Democrats are saying that they want to just give the houses to the poor people who foolishly bought a house they couldn't afford. Obama is also a believer in the unproven hypothesis that CO2 emissions cause climate change (as is John McCain.) BUt, Obama proposes that the uS implement an energy policy similar to that Great Britain adopted a few years ago, despite the now apparent failure of that policy in Great Britain. Obama wants to get rid of nuclear power, stop drilling, and build windmills and solar power plants. He says that thsi will create 5 million "green" jobs. I suppose he could cause that to happen, but even his god-like powers will not make that pay off in satisfaction of the United States energy needs. McCain at least wants to build nuclear power plants and drill for oil, as well trying to develop wind and solar power.

There are a lot of reasons why I don't like the idea of Barack Obama being President. (I don't like John McCain for many reasons, but regard him as the lessor of two evils.) The discussions of both candidates regarding tax policies are basically lies (since they know there is no chance that what they are saying would ever become law.) But, Democrats now in charge of Congress and Obama want to do some things that I would not like, and which McCain would not support. These include changing the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college, and to allow the President to serve more than two terms. (I assume Obama would prefer not to have to cancel elections or suspend the Constitution to continue to govern after his second term.) Regarding defense, Obama has said he would never use nuclear weapons to defend the US. He probably means that, but facing impeachment in a crisis, he probably would. Nevertheless, his statement encourages terrorists and other potential enemies that they could attack the US without fear of effective penalty. Obama has worked closely with the thuggish organization Acorn, and says he would use Acorn in organizing his Administration. He has said he would like to have an internal defense organization that is larger than the DoD. This at least suggests that he may envision Acorn as his "brown shirts," the separate military organization loyal to him rather than to the state. (Obama makes a lot of speeches in which he reveals a "messianic complex" similar to that of dictators such a Hitler and Hugo Chavez.) Naomi Wolf has written books about all of the signs that President Bush is a fascist, and is working toward a fascist takeover of the US government. She has some silly examples, and apparently does not recognize what a real fascist looks like. I think Bush has indeed set the stage for a fascist takeover, but Bush is not a fascist and so is not the one who will actually end our current Constitutional government. Obama apears to be "the One." At least he seems to think he is.

Here is some staire about the "global Warming/Climate Change consensus:"


People who have not studied science do not realize how silly the Al Gore "the debate is over" assertion is. The debate over whether CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths (around 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns). The debate is also over regarding the minor atmospheric temperature increase resulting from dramatically increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is not much). But the debate over feedback mechanisms that might or might not dramatically increase temperature because of the slight temperature increase due to CO2. The debate over feedback has just started, and so far the results from new data collection sources do not support the GCM developers who assumed that all feedbacks were positive, that is, cause a temperature increase.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The blog Strata Sphere has a mantra that is accurate:

McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America!

Great Britain is on the path to self destruction. They have an energy policy that Obama wants to emulate, and it is destroying their economy. Then there is the matter of laws that prevent people from defending their lives and property. Here is the latest on protecting property from Graet Britain:

A gardener has been ordered by council chiefs to remove three foot high barbed wire ringing his allotment - in case thieves scratch themselves climbing over it.

Bill Malcolm, 61, took the drastic step of installing the wire in a bid to prevent burglars raiding his tool shed and ransacking his vegetable plots.

Intruders have struck three times in four months, stealing more than £300 worth of hardware, including spades, forks and hoes as well as destroying his potato patch.

The fed-up gardener surrounded his 600 square yard site in Worcester with a single strand of barbed wire, which stood no more than waist high.

But his local council declared the security measure was a health and safety hazard and warned him they would forcibly remove it if he refused.

Bill said: ‘It’s an absolutely ridiculous situation, all I wanted was to protect my property but the wire had to go in case a thief scratched himself.

‘The council said they were unhappy about the precautions I had made but my response was to tell them that only someone climbing over on to my allotment could possibly hurt themselves.

‘They shouldn’t be trespassing in the first place but the council apologised and said they didn’t want to be sued by a wounded thief.

A few years ago a burglar in England fell through a sky-light of an establishment he was attempting to rob, with the result that he lost a leg. He sued the place he was attempting to rob and was awarded $1 million. I suppose the council's fears were well founded.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

There is a lot on the internet now about Obama having been a member of the now defunct New Party, an off-shoot of the Democratic Socialist Party. It is obvious that Obama is a socialist, though that won't be reported in the MSM, so this is nothing new. It seems to me that McCain has missed the point about Obama's association with Bill Ayres. It isn't that Ayres was a terrorist, but that he is a communist, and that Obama worked with him to bring his communists agenda into the educational system in the US to indoctrinate the youth of America with "Revolution" to end capitalism.

It appears that Obama will be elected President, barring the unlikely event of some explosive development in the next two or three weeks. The current economic crisis is going to give him the opportunity to implement his and the Democrat's socialist agenda. I would expect to see something similar to the disastrous policies of FDR that resulted in 25% unemployment for almost a decade (until the buildup for WWII). FDR managed to place the blame for the bad economy he caused with his fascist policies on the Republicans. I think Obama will have more success in implementing the fascist agenda than FDR did because FDR had to have the support of Southern Democrats who opposed socialism, but who are no longer a major force, and FDR had more resistance from the Supreme Court than is likely now.

Those foreigners that Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the Democrats admire so much are gleeful over the current financial crisis, and are ecstatic over the prospect of an Obama Presidency, who they see ending the US as a superpower.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Here is a suggestion that Barack Obama and the Iranians will have something to talk about that both can agree on; specifically, keeping the price of oil high. That makes sense to me, since I heard Obama say in effect that it would be good for the price of gasoline to gradually increase to $5 per gallon, or more.


One mystery to me is how Democrats have managed to convince the public that the Republicans are the party of the rich. From what I see, it appears that most of the super rich are Democrats, and are probably fascists. The head of the now defunct Lehman Brothers, who paid himself $480 million over eight years, gave a lot of money to Democrats and not much to Republicans. Lehman gave a lot to Barack Obama. The reason is simple; Democrats protected them from regulations they didn't like, and got regulators to forcebanks to make sub-prime loans. Current events have turned the Democrats on Wall Street now, of course. Here is a blurb about the excreable Henry Waxman's recent hearing.


I had a sign in my office that said "Bureaucracy is the Enemy." Back in the Roman Republic, some felt the same way. (I copied this from THe Patriot Post.)

“A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?” —Marcus Tullius Cicero

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Here is an interview with Samantha Power, who formerly worked for Barack Obama for about two years, until she was forced to leave the campaign after she called Hilary Clinton a "monster." She is widely considered to be Obama's choice for either Secretary of State or National Security Adviser. She was born in Ireland, but I assume is a US citizen now, though she still has ties to Ireland, and recently married Cass Sunstein in Ireland. (Sunstein is an Obama adviser on Constitutional matters, and is widely considered to be Obama's first choice for a Supreme Court appointment.) Power is one of the anti-Israel adviser to Obama, and in a lawyerly way, calls for an invasion and occupation of Ireland in this interview. (In the interview Power says the US is a "liberal democracy:" I thought the US was a Republic, but I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.) I fail to understand why Jewish people vote Democrat given the Democrat's lack of support of Israel, and particularly Obama's animus toward Israel.


I expected Acorn to be Obama's Brownshirts. I don't know what to think about these guys in blue shirts, bu I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's old Acorn buddies had something to do with this:


Saturday, October 04, 2008

Here is an excellent column by Thomas Sowell. He can't explian why Republicans are inept, and observes that they deserve to lose, but then points out that the nation deserves better than to be put into the hands of the lying Democrats.


Friday, October 03, 2008

I have watched the MSM today as they trashed Sarah Palin. It is curious to me that no one discussed any of the really silly things Joe Biden said. He said, for example, that we have only spent as much money in the entire war in Afghanistan as we spend in Iraq in one month. That is clearly a ridiculous statement. Actually about one-fourth as much has been spent in Afghanistan as in Iraq. There is also the matter of how much is being spent in Iraq. The average is about $6 billion per month, not $10 billion. (And, that $6 billion is not the marginal cost. Most of those soldiers would be in the army somewhere if they were not in Iraq.) Then there was that curious comment about Bush letting Hezbollah back into Lebanon after the US and France had kicked them out. What was he talking about? It don't recall that ever happening. As I recall, Hezbollah kicked us out of Lebanon when Reagan was President. Instead of analyzing what Biden said, the MSM said he was confident and had a command of the facts. I wonder if they even knew that what he said was factually incorrect. They certainly didn't care.

Here are comments from a guy in silicon valley who is more optimistic than I am about the future. I tend to think that the Democrats are correct that they have finally succeeded in killing capitalism. This guy thinks Washington's social engineering schemes of raising the price of oil to save the planet, and establishing the right for all Americans to be provided a home are at an end now, and that capitalism will come back. I hope so.


I wonder how many people took note of Joe Biden's comments in the debate with Sarah Palin regarding home mortgages. Joe, and according to him, Obama, wants for judges to not only be able to reduce the interest on home loans, but also to reduce the principle if the house is now worth less than is owed. That amounts to confiscation of private property, and is pure communism. That doesn't seem to trouble Democrats these days, and even Republicans don't seem to object much.

Biden is a strange guy to me. He says so many things that are simply not true that he is literally a walking gaffe machine. For people who don't know better (like Katie Couric) he appears to be in command of facts and figures because of the confident way he spouts them out. But a lot of what he said last night was so inaccurate that he must be delusional. Of course, a guy who thinks President FDR made a televised speech in 1929 is not in close touch with reality. His spinners must get dizzy as they try to rationalize his gaffes.

Global Warming has become "the conventional wisdom." Of course Global Warming has morphed into "climate change" as all unusual weather events, even unseasonal cold weather, are attributed to global warming. One aspect of the global warming issue is the way socialists and other sorts of collectivists have grasped it as a means to promote centralized government control of the economy. As usual, it is assumed that a market economy will be unable to deal with the issue, if it proves to be real, whcih is still very much in doubt. Here is a talk that explores this matter.


Thursday, October 02, 2008

Here is the British Ambassador to the United States assessment of Senator Obama.


I'm not the only one who has observed that the Democrat's have managed to convert America to socialism via stealth programs. Here is a piece on the subject from American Thinker:


This week Senator Barack Obama was on the floor of the Senate, where he has rarely been for the past two years.

The current financial crisis is filling up the airwaves these days. I saw a talking head show interview a hedge fund operator. This individual asserted that Wall Street is responsible for what has happened because they lobbied Congress for all of the goofy rule changes that were done with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac such as increasing leverage from 10 to 1 to 30 to 1, and giving no down payment, no documentatation loans to minorities, etc. So Wall Street deserves what has happened to them, in that guys opinion. This explains why Wall Street gives so much money to Democrats, and why they support Obama, and why they supported Kerry. Ironically, the Democrats can now blame the problem on George Bush and John McCain, the guys who tried to prevent the changes Wall Street wanted.

Now creeping socialism has overtaken us, as government is basically taking over all banking. And, the crisis ensures that the people who caused the crisis will take over the government. A communist supported by fascists is going to be elected President. Amazing. Obama's financial adviser, Austan Goolsby, seems to be saying that Obama will govern as a fascist rather than a communist, and that is probably true, at least in the first term. (Goolsby points out that Obama has to govern in a manner that will allow re-election.)

It is curious that this crisis is happening right before the election. I wonder if George Soros has anything to do with this?

Here is an email from the blog Dissecting Leftism that explains how the current financial crisis is the result of government action, not free enterprise. The "mark-to-market" rule made it inevitable that the financial market would melt down, and how it ensures that the market will spiral downward because public companies cannot afford to buy paper once the downward spiral starts. I see congressmen on TV saying that they doubt the government will get its money back from a bail-out. I think this is one of the biggest legal thefts in history, ranking up with FDR's theft from the people back in 1933 when he confiscated the gold held by private individuals.

There are TWO ways the U.S. government has destroyed the financial system

The email below from someone in the system (Steve Goodman of Voorhees, NJ) explains all. Not only did the government cause the problem with its insistence on lending money to anybody capable of staggering into a bank but it is now preventing any recovery of the system with its "mark to market" regulation. The essential point is that most sub-prime borrowers are in fact making their payments but the regulations not only ignore that but force the financial system to treat the mortgages concerned as worthless

I am an attorney and have spent most of my career advising banks and other lenders on compliance with the many laws and regulations that govern loans to consumers and businesses.

I think that the culprit behind this mess is fast coming to light. It is our government. In part the crisis is a runaway subprime loan giveaway foisted on regulated lenders by the government. Banks and other mortgage lenders were required by federal law to make and invest in mortgages made to persons who could not afford to borrow, or they would be in violation of the federal 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Over the years, consumer activist groups, such as ACORN (but there are others), used the CRA to interject themselves in the regulatory process regarding requests by banks to open new branches or to merge with other institutions. Initially, the Federal Reserve Board gave little weight to these activist claims but, as the Congress criticized the Fed to enforce the CRA (and thereby to STOP discrimination in home lending, of which there was little or no evidence), banks were forced to enter into contracts with ACORN and other activist groups under which they committed to make billions of dollars of subprime loans.

The CRA was used more recently as a cudgel to force banks to make loans the banks would not make on their own. How could a bank refuse to make a loan if it would be approved by applying the very low approval standards adopted by the gse's (Fannie and Freddie)? And, under Andrew Cuomo, the Chairman of HUD in the 90's, the then "normal" rules for rejecting loans were replaced by very lax standards intended to rapidly increase home ownership by those persons who could not afford to buy homes under the old rules. HUD permitted the charging of broker's fees, ALT-A loans, interest only, and whatever the market would bear. It created the subprime market we know today and induced lenders to participate. States and localities are adopting laws and ordnances to regulate the practices of mortgage lenders and brokers, with no real understanding of how the market got to this point.

The majority of CRA (subprime) loans are now performing. But, that fact seems to have no impact on their "market" value, at least to regulators, auditors and accountants. The market for subprime loans has quickly dried up because the "mark to market" rule adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board requires that all assets be valued and revalued based on their current market worth. If the secondary market for any financial product (such as a loan) tends to dry up, the mark to market rule comes into play to further devalue those products traded in that market. Thus, fairly quickly, an otherwise performing subprime loan secured by residential real estate collateral has a near zero market value. Even if a buyer wanted to purchase the subprime mortgage for what the buyer deemed its worth based on the performing stream of payments. interest rate, and the like, the buyer would be required to immediately mark the asset value down on its books and undermine its own stock market value.

So, if a buyer purchased a mortgage that, based on the likelihood of payment, remaining payments, interest rate, and credit worthiness of the borrower it valued at $100,000, it would then have to apply the mark to market rule to value the loan at near zero on its books. No publicly traded or regulated company or bank can do that. Moreover, in my experience, the bank regulators will soon demand that other loans, such as prime mortgage loans, car loans, installment loans, and the like, be written down as their marketability will come into question. The regulators can themselves bring a loan market to a standstill. They did it before and will do it again.

Thus, the net effect of the mark to market accounting rule is to create a downward spiral in valuation of all loans, without regard to their true worth. And, while the mark to market rule was supposed to create a better understanding of a company's (or bank's) value, which the cost basis somehow did not do (although it worked for a long, long time and there was no perceived need to change it), it has quickly been found to artificially undermine that net worth.

So, instead of throwing $700 Billion into a black hole, to be doled out at the discretion of some bureaucrat who will have no idea what he or she is doing, and thereby prolonging instability in the market and inviting a depression, we should simply rescind the mark to market rule and let buyers and sellers reach the price for loans that would allow them to value loans in the real world and use that cost or historical value for bookkeeping purposes. To do so will keep bank regulators, accountants and auditors at bay and open the market to market trading.

(It would be a positive on public confidence in the banking system to raise the cap on deposit insurance, too but, in my opinion, that is not as essential as rescinding the mark to market rule.)

Note that by requiring the use of the mark to market rule, the government that required that subprime loans be made, is now requiring that they be written down to near zero values that Secretary is advising the Congress are much less than their real worth. After all, his argument in selling his plan to the Congress is that the government can hold the loans for a short while and then sell them into the market for large profits. But, unless and until the mark to market rule is rescinded, The government will be able to sell subprime loans only to nonpublicly traded companies. So, to unload these loans for the promised profits, the mark to market rule will rescinded when it is in the interests of our government to do so.

In essence, the U. S. Government has required banks and other mortgage lenders to make imprudent subprime loans and, under Paulson's plan, gets to steal them and later sell them for a profit. This is not a bailout. It is highway robbery. And, we are now getting to see the Paulson plan for what it is. This is a very incompetent man who rose far above his capabilities.